2002 PLP 690 (SCMR)
KHALID SIDDIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB and
| Citation | 2002 PLP 690 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Actg. C. J. and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar. J |
| Parties | KHALID SIDDIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB and |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 690 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 690 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Actg. C. J. and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 690 (SCMR) (KHALID SIDDIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Riaz Hussain, Officer Incharge Legal Cell, Excise and Taxation Department for Respondent No. 1.
- Ch. Shaukat Ali, Director, Excise and Taxation (HQ) for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 14th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 6‑11‑2001 passed in Appeal No.348 of 1991). ‑‑‑‑Rr. 3(a) & 4(b)(i)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 212(3)‑‑ Penalty‑‑‑Negligence on the part of civil servant, who during whole period of his service, had earned no adverse remarks except the one on account of negligence‑‑‑Imposition of major penalty did not commensurate with the kind of the act of negligence committed by the civil servant and his case was that of imposition of minor penalty which was modified by the Supreme Court accordingly. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑The petitioner who was Excise and Taxation Officer passed an order on 1‑4‑1989 for reduction of seating capacity of a vehicle from 42 to
16. After the said date the said vehicle was impounded when it was found that the same was being plied with 42 seats and the owner had not paid the required tax and caused monetary loss to the Government. The petitioner was charge‑sheeted and major penalty of reduction in time scale by three stages was imposed on him by the authority which was challenged by him before the Service Tribunal by filing an appeal which has been accepted partly and the said penalty modified from three stages to one stage.
2. It was argued by the petitioner on the last date of hearing that the seating capacity of the vehicle was reduced on the basis of two certificates issued by the authorised authority i.e. the workshop concerned. We issued notice to the respondents. Ch. Shaukat Ali, Director Excise and Taxation Headquarters and Syed Riaz Hussain, Officer Incharge Legal Cell, Excise and Taxation Department have appeared today and stated that the certificates of workshop were found to be bogus and Assistant Director Excise and Taxation also gave a dissenting note. However, the tax alongwith the penalty was recovered by the petitioner from the owner of the vehicle.
3. The case of the petitioner was that the seating capacity at the time of passing of the order was actually shown as 16 seats and if the owner of the vehicle had subsequently restored 42 seats in the vehicle and it was impounded, he was not at fault. It was not the case against the petitioner that he actually forged the said two certificates or in any manner was party to it.
4. We find that it is a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner and imposition of major penalty did not commensurate with the kind of the act of the petitioner, therefore, it was a case of imposition of minor penalty, particularly, in view of the fact that during whole period of his service, there is no adverse remarks against him. Adverse remarks were given in his ACR only on the basis of the present incident.
5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the modification of the penalty to minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. M.B.A./K‑49/S Order accordingly.